


Meta: A Hex On Your Sacred Cows

by deslea



Category: Harry Potter - J. K. Rowling
Genre: Aurors, Avada Kedavra, First War, Gen, Meta, Ministry of Magic, Pureblood Society, Slytherins, unforgivables
Language: English
Status: Completed
Published: 2013-11-06
Updated: 2013-11-06
Packaged: 2017-12-31 16:26:43
Rating: General Audiences
Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply
Chapters: 1
Words: 1,637
Publisher: archiveofourown.org
Story URL: https://archiveofourown.org/works/1033823
Author URL: https://archiveofourown.org/users/deslea/pseuds/deslea
Summary: <blockquote class="userstuff">
              <p>In the First War, Aurors were authorised by the Ministry to use Unforgivables in the pursuit of Death Eaters. The effect was not what they had in mind. Written for the Imperius Fest at hp_darkarts on LiveJournal, October 2013.</p>
            </blockquote>





	Meta: A Hex On Your Sacred Cows

I'm going to start with a couple of digressions from the main topic, that of the impact of allowing Aurors to use Unforgivables on the course of the First War. My thoughts about the use of Unforgivables by the Aurors draw heavily on a couple of other ideas that I have about Pureblood society generally, so I want to tease those out first. 

Firstly, I think Purebloods, and Slytherins, are very motivated by notions of merit. (Whether the basis for merit is in any objective sense _right_ is something I'll leave aside for now). 

Let's start with Voldemort. While many in the fandom seem to think that Voldemort's identity as Tom Riddle, the half-blooded orphan, was not common knowledge, I am inclined to disagree. Tom had real currency as a brilliant young man, and already had followers. These followers accompanied him on his first known excursion as Voldemort, back to Hogwarts. Also, we know from Tom Riddle's diary-self that he had adopted the name Voldemort, at least privately, at school. I think Tom was fully accepted as Tom and there was continuity between Tom and Voldemort. 

So why was he accepted as an equal, even a better? Merit. He was a powerful personality and a powerful wizard, even then, and he had _some_ (diluted) blood merit as a half-blood, too. He was accepted as a Slytherin by the Sorting Hat and then accepted by his peers.

We see this again in Severus Snape, a half-blood raised poor in the Muggle world. The Slytherin/Pureblood world saw beyond his rags to his brilliance and accepted him. There is no suggestion that he is considered less for being half-blood, even by people who dislike him. There is no suggestion that his Slytherin charges thought less of him for his antecedents. His mother, presumably, was considered less for her behaviour in marrying someone lacking in merit, but this prejudice does not seem to have been carried forward to him.

Interestingly, we see this in Tonks as well. Bella is taunted with the dishonour of her niece's conduct in marrying a werewolf, and Draco taunted with a suggestion that he might babysit the cubs. Voldemort encourages Bella to kill Tonks for her conduct. Implicit in this is that Tonks was not automatically excluded from the family due to Andromeda's desertion - she was not included due to the logistics of the estrangement, but she might theoretically have been welcomed back. She only became completely excluded, and a target, when her own conduct made her unacceptable.

To a much lesser extent, we see acceptance completely separate from blood, in the acceptance of Greyback, the Giants, loyal elves like Kreacher, and the Dementors. For the most part these acceptances are later and caught up with wartime expedience (and generally work on a basis of superiority-inferiority rather than acceptance as equals). 

What all of this adds up to, in my view, is a Pureblood society that strongly mirrors the English aristocracy at that time. There were people entitled to be part of that society by lineage, and there were people accepted on the basis of merit. The latter could be cut from the society at any time, and in that sense their place was more conditional and more precarious. I think we can reasonably extrapolate that the hierarchy goes something like: Pureblood (unconditional other than self-exclusion by some act interpreted as desertion), half-blood (entry by merit then unconditional), others (entry by merit and always conditional). The only ones who probably can _never_ be admitted even on merit are Muggle-borns, since they were perceived to have stolen their magic. However, I would suggest that even a Muggle-born could possibly be accepted if there is a clear provenance for their magic (ie, lineage can be tracked via a Squib).

So that's my first starting point in considering this. It implies a more nuanced approach to blood, and blood-based bigotry, than we think of generally in the HP world.

My second starting point is that Pureblood society, in line with its structured traditions and its focus on merit, and mirroring English aristocratic traditions, probably had a strong sense of honour in combat. We see mention of the Avada Kedavra as a spell brought into being for use in duels. It was seemingly intended for use in structured, rules-based fights to the death over a point of honour. Consider, too, that this is a society in which anyone with enough will to do so can kill, just on the basis of thought and a piece of wood to focus magical energy. The strength of the taboo over the A-K must have been enormous. The whole intent of the taboo is to civilise, to ensure that all those moments of rage between people in close relationships do not bubble over into carnage. It's the interpersonal equivalent of toilet training. Anything that unpicks the taboo would be seen as incredibly dangerous - the beginning of a social slippery slope. This would be particularly powerful to a society that already prizes collective good over the individual.

So along comes Voldemort in circa 1965-1970, agitating for war. He is speaking to a society that is, I think, quite open to his ideas, but not necessarily to his methods.

Firstly, the ideas. Protection of blood, a place earned in society on the basis of merit - all that is very consistent with Pureblood thinking. Consider, too, the backdrop of the sexual revolution, which would have come into the magical world via Muggle-borns - a new threat to blood purity. Consider the movement towards tolerance and individualist thinking coming from that world - an affront to a society that is built around the subordination of personal interest for the good of the tribe (which we see in pseudo-canon arranged marriage, exclusion for choice of mate, etc). Plus, Pureblood tradition, like its Muggle equivalent, was probably suffering from issues of relevancy and a sense of place as the world carried on its path.

On the other hand, though, Voldemort's proposed methods were probably less palatable. Fundamentally this was still a society made up of the most privileged and comfortable, with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. The magical world would not have escaped World War II unscathed. There would be tales of the Muggles' astonishing new weapons (and probably quite a lack of understanding of Muggle rules of wartime engagement). There would probably be a desire to maintain security by obscurity. Muggle war would also look rather ugly and crass to them - no elegance, no skill, just bomb the hell out of whatever happened to be close by and belonged to the enemy, innocent victims be damned. As well as dangerous, war with Muggles would seem like a very uncivilised kind of battle to get into. So low-level vigilantism would be seen as fine, but war risky.

In response to this, Voldemort would be pushing the usual propaganda in these situations - the end justifies the means, greater and lesser evil, we're just pre-empting what they're going to do anyway. He would emphasise that he _knows_ what inferiors think from his upbringing in the orphanage; far from admiring them and glorifying them, the inferior secretly resent their greatness and are just looking for a way to bring them down. He could point to the breakdown of aristocratic power in the Muggle world as evidence. He has enough acceptance of his ideas to do what he's planning to do anyway; the Purebloods will not actively try to stop him, or shun him for it, even though most are not yet inclined to join him.

So there comes a point where Voldemort and his (probably small) core of followers are dangerous enough to attract Ministry attention. Perhaps, he has the political savvy to contrive an inciting event seemingly created by the Aurors, so that his first strike would seem to the Pureblood world like a justified response. The Ministry, of course, would know that Voldemort himself had created the event. Perhaps Voldemort uses the Imperius to plant the seed in the Ministry, that quietly disposing of these dangerous dissidents would be an efficient way of stemming the tide. But even if he didn't, it would probably occur to any self-respecting politician sooner rather than later anyway.

So the Ministry authorises the Aurors to use the Unforgivables. In my view, this turns the tide. Why? Because suddenly _everything Voldemort said was going to happen is coming true._ The establishment that is supposed to be _theirs_ is authorising the killing of political opponents from _their_ families, outside of structured combat. It would be the magical equivalent of invoking martial law - like suddenly, the police are allowed to enter your home and shoot at will. They're moving away from merit in combat and bringing in Muggle notions of power achieved by brute force. If it can happen to Voldemort's people - aristocrats! - then it can happen to _them_. Suddenly the status quo is no longer safe enough to motivate Purebloods to stay neutral. I think at this point Voldemort suddenly found himself with lots of money, lots of intelligence, and probably a lot of footsoldiers, too. I think this is probably when we saw the Death Eater corps expand from the true fanatics who cared nothing for their existing privilege (the Lestranges, Barty Crouch Jr) to include the more socially-motivated, self-preserving followers (the Malfoys).

Was this the start of the First War? Or a little way in? I don't have a firm view either way, but I definitely think it was a turning point. What I don't think is that the Ministry could introduce such a massive change to the rules of engagement and get out unscathed.

So, there you have it - my ramblings for what they're worth. I'll don my asbestos suit, and you can pick it to pieces for all its worth. Enjoy!


End file.
